Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Correction: Dagan et al. A Lifespan Development Theory of Insecure Attachment and Internalizing Symptoms: Integrating Meta-Analytic Evidence via a Testable Evolutionary Mis/Match Hypothesis. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1226

Correction: Dagan et al. A Lifespan Development Theory of Insecure Attachment and Internalizing... brain sciences Correction Correction: Dagan et al. A Lifespan Development Theory of Insecure Attachment and Internalizing Symptoms: Integrating Meta-Analytic Evidence via a Testable Evolutionary Mis/Match Hypothesis. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1226 1, 2 3 1 Or Dagan * , Ashley M. Groh , Sheri Madigan and Kristin Bernard Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA; kristin.bernard@stonybrook.edu Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, USA; groha@missouri.edu Department of Psychology, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, AB T3B 6A8, Canada; sheri.madigan@ucalgary.ca * Correspondence: or.dagan@stonybrook.edu Error in Table In the original article [1], there was a mistake in Table 1 as published. The confidence interval reported for the comparison between insecure-dismissing and secure attachment adolescence and adulthood classification groups was wrong. The corrected Table 1 appears below. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original article has been updated. Citation: Dagan, O.; Groh, A.M.; Madigan, S.; Bernard, K. Correction: Dagan et al. A Lifespan Development Theory of Insecure Attachment and Internalizing Symptoms: Integrating Meta-Analytic Evidence via a Testable Evolutionary Mis/Match Hypothesis. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1226. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 820. https:// doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12070820 Received: 9 June 2022 Accepted: 15 June 2022 Published: 24 June 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- iations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 820. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12070820 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/brainsci Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 820 2 of 2 Table 1. List of meta-analyses assessing the magnitude of the links between insecure attachment patterns and internalizing symptoms. Most Prevalent Attachment Attachment Cohen’s d Author (Year) Symptoms Group k N Heterogeneity Measures (95% CI) Measures Comparison CHILDHOOD A versus 22 3119 0.17 (0.03, 0.31) Q(21) = 32.82 * Groh et al. B+C+D SSP CBCL (2012) [60] C versus 21 3078 0.03 (0.11, 0.17) Q(20) = 26.05 B+A+D A versus B 21 1852 0.29 (0.12, 0.45) Q(20) = 33.78 * Madigan et al. CBCL, TRF C versus B 21 1823 0.10 (0.12, 0.32) Q(20) = 30.11 * SSP (2013) [53] A versus C 19 664 0.17 (0.41, 0.06) Q(18) = 48.35 ** ADOLESCENCE AND ADULTHOOD Ds versus F 43 2881 0.09 (0.03, 0.22) Q(42) = 90.68 *** Dagan et al. BDI, CES-D E versus F 38 2079 0.48 (0.30, 0.65) Q(37) = 71.90 *** AAI (2018) [61] E versus Ds 37 1285 0.34 (0.19, 0.50) Q(36) = 47.65 Ds versus F 50 4376 0.02 (0.10, 0.05) Q(49) = 68.09 * Dagan et al. AAI BSI, SCL-90-R E versus F 42 3271 0.35 (0.19, 0.50) Q(41) = 99.53 *** (2020) [62] E versus Ds 41 2184 0.31 (0.15, 0.47) Q(40) = 88.99 *** Bolded letters represent the attachment classification groups associated with significantly more reported symptoms compared with the other group(s). k = Number of studies; N = Number of participants; AAI = Adult Attachment Interview; SSP = Strange Situation Procedure; BDI = Beck Depression Inventory (self-report); BSI = Brief Symptom Inventory (self-report); CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist (parent report); CES-D = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (self-report); SCL-90-R = Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (self-report); TRF = Teacher ’s Report Form; A = Insecure-Avoidant; B = Secure; C = Insecure-Resistant; Ds = Insecure-Dismissing; E = Insecure- Preoccupied; F = Secure-Autonomous. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001. Reference 1. Dagan, O.; Groh, A.M.; Madigan, S.; Bernard, K. A Lifespan Development Theory of Insecure Attachment and Internalizing Symptoms: Integrating Meta-Analytic Evidence via a Testable Evolutionary Mis/Match Hypothesis. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1226. [CrossRef] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Brain Sciences Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Correction: Dagan et al. A Lifespan Development Theory of Insecure Attachment and Internalizing Symptoms: Integrating Meta-Analytic Evidence via a Testable Evolutionary Mis/Match Hypothesis. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1226

Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/correction-dagan-et-al-a-lifespan-development-theory-of-insecure-MrN03fTeEC

References (1)

Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright
© 1996-2022 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN
2076-3425
DOI
10.3390/brainsci12070820
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

brain sciences Correction Correction: Dagan et al. A Lifespan Development Theory of Insecure Attachment and Internalizing Symptoms: Integrating Meta-Analytic Evidence via a Testable Evolutionary Mis/Match Hypothesis. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1226 1, 2 3 1 Or Dagan * , Ashley M. Groh , Sheri Madigan and Kristin Bernard Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA; kristin.bernard@stonybrook.edu Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, USA; groha@missouri.edu Department of Psychology, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, AB T3B 6A8, Canada; sheri.madigan@ucalgary.ca * Correspondence: or.dagan@stonybrook.edu Error in Table In the original article [1], there was a mistake in Table 1 as published. The confidence interval reported for the comparison between insecure-dismissing and secure attachment adolescence and adulthood classification groups was wrong. The corrected Table 1 appears below. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original article has been updated. Citation: Dagan, O.; Groh, A.M.; Madigan, S.; Bernard, K. Correction: Dagan et al. A Lifespan Development Theory of Insecure Attachment and Internalizing Symptoms: Integrating Meta-Analytic Evidence via a Testable Evolutionary Mis/Match Hypothesis. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1226. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 820. https:// doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12070820 Received: 9 June 2022 Accepted: 15 June 2022 Published: 24 June 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- iations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 820. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12070820 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/brainsci Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 820 2 of 2 Table 1. List of meta-analyses assessing the magnitude of the links between insecure attachment patterns and internalizing symptoms. Most Prevalent Attachment Attachment Cohen’s d Author (Year) Symptoms Group k N Heterogeneity Measures (95% CI) Measures Comparison CHILDHOOD A versus 22 3119 0.17 (0.03, 0.31) Q(21) = 32.82 * Groh et al. B+C+D SSP CBCL (2012) [60] C versus 21 3078 0.03 (0.11, 0.17) Q(20) = 26.05 B+A+D A versus B 21 1852 0.29 (0.12, 0.45) Q(20) = 33.78 * Madigan et al. CBCL, TRF C versus B 21 1823 0.10 (0.12, 0.32) Q(20) = 30.11 * SSP (2013) [53] A versus C 19 664 0.17 (0.41, 0.06) Q(18) = 48.35 ** ADOLESCENCE AND ADULTHOOD Ds versus F 43 2881 0.09 (0.03, 0.22) Q(42) = 90.68 *** Dagan et al. BDI, CES-D E versus F 38 2079 0.48 (0.30, 0.65) Q(37) = 71.90 *** AAI (2018) [61] E versus Ds 37 1285 0.34 (0.19, 0.50) Q(36) = 47.65 Ds versus F 50 4376 0.02 (0.10, 0.05) Q(49) = 68.09 * Dagan et al. AAI BSI, SCL-90-R E versus F 42 3271 0.35 (0.19, 0.50) Q(41) = 99.53 *** (2020) [62] E versus Ds 41 2184 0.31 (0.15, 0.47) Q(40) = 88.99 *** Bolded letters represent the attachment classification groups associated with significantly more reported symptoms compared with the other group(s). k = Number of studies; N = Number of participants; AAI = Adult Attachment Interview; SSP = Strange Situation Procedure; BDI = Beck Depression Inventory (self-report); BSI = Brief Symptom Inventory (self-report); CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist (parent report); CES-D = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (self-report); SCL-90-R = Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (self-report); TRF = Teacher ’s Report Form; A = Insecure-Avoidant; B = Secure; C = Insecure-Resistant; Ds = Insecure-Dismissing; E = Insecure- Preoccupied; F = Secure-Autonomous. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001. Reference 1. Dagan, O.; Groh, A.M.; Madigan, S.; Bernard, K. A Lifespan Development Theory of Insecure Attachment and Internalizing Symptoms: Integrating Meta-Analytic Evidence via a Testable Evolutionary Mis/Match Hypothesis. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1226. [CrossRef]

Journal

Brain Sciences – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Jun 24, 2022

Keywords: n/a

There are no references for this article.